Even with a record for marijuana possession, Candita Gottsponer said didn't expect to go to prison for her first DUI. But a state law toughening penalties for repeat offenders left the judge with no other option. While she used her time in prison to take classes and better herself, she said she saw other non-violent offenders drawn to more severe criminal behavior upon release. (Rebekah Zemansky/Cronkite News Service)

More conservatives joining push to change sentencing guidelines

Even with a record for marijuana possession, Candita Gottsponer said didn't expect to go to prison for her first DUI. But a state law toughening penalties for repeat offenders left the judge with no other option. While she used her time in prison to take classes and better herself, she said she saw other non-violent offenders drawn to more severe criminal behavior upon release. (Rebekah Zemansky/Cronkite News Service)
Rebekah Zemansky

Corrective June 2, 2011: In the
introduction to this story about efforts by some conservatives to
change sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders, Cronkite
News Service erroneously reported the circumstances under which
sentencing guidelines applied to the case of a woman sent to prison
in 2009, the charges involved in that case and the offender's
criminal record.

The 2009 case for which woman was sentenced involved
aggravated DUI, for which she received an 18-month sentence, and
false reporting to law enforcement, for which she received 25 days
to be served concurrently with another sentence. In this case,
Arizona Revised Statues required a sentence of at least 10 days
behind bars for a first instance of aggravated DUI.

At the same time, the woman was sentenced to prison for
violating terms of parole for a 2003 sentence. She received two and
a half years in prison for possession of a dangerous drug, which
court documents listed as methamphetamine, and 18 months for
failure to appear in that case.

In addition to pleading guilty in 1999 to possession and use
of marijuana, the woman's previous offenses included theft, two
instances of possession and use of a dangerous drug, failure to
appear and providing liquor to a minor.

PHOENIX -- Even with a record for marijuana possession, Candita
Gottsponer didn't expect to go to prison for her first DUI. But a
state law toughening penalties for repeat offenders left the judge
with no other option.

She served 23 months at the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Perryville.

A mother of two, Gottsponer focused during her prison term on
taking classes leading to certification as an automobile mechanic.
She was released earlier this year and now works as a housekeeper
and caretaker.

"I'm not looking back," she said. "Now that I've got an
education and I know I can do it, I'm going to pursue more
education. I want to be a good role model to my kids."

But what she saw happen to other inmates serving time for
non-violent offenses makes her think that prison can often do more
harm than good. Rather than taking classes, she said, some inmates
were content to sit and smoke much, and those lacking family
support had a particularly hard time.

Gottsponer saw some inmates return to prison for new crimes only
days after being released.

"I went in there and I did really good," she said. "Things
happened for me, but at the same time I saw very horrible things
happening to people."

Since the late 1970s, state and federal lawmakers have reacted
to rising crime and the illicit drug trade by mandating prison time
for many non-violent offenses, ranging from driving under the
influence to possession of small amounts of marijuana. Those
sentencing guidelines also targeted repeat offenders regardless of
whether their offenses were violent.

Advocates, generally offering a liberal perspective, have
responded that eliminating the options of fines, work release,
substance-abuse treatment and house arrest in favor of prison time
can turn non-violent offenders into career criminals. Losing
contact with their families, communities and jobs contributes to
this, they argue.

As states face large budget deficits, calls for reforming
sentencing for non-violent offenders also are coming increasingly
from conservatives who call prison costs unsustainable.

While Arizona's population increased by 24.6 percent from 2001
to 2010, the population in state and private prisons rose 50.8
percent to 40,508. Bill Hart, a senior policy analyst at the
nonpartisan Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State
University, said laws requiring mandatory minimum and maximum
sentences for a broadening range of non-violent offenses
contributed to that.

"Incarceration has long been a growth industry in Arizona," he
said.

Rep. Cecil Ash, R-Mesa, a former public defender who has pushed
unsuccessfully for changes to sentencing laws, said incarcerating
non-violent offenders whose punishments could be handled in
less-expensive ways leaves other state programs neglected. He
pointed to lesser drug offenses and white-collar crimes as
examples.

"There are only limited funds to go around, and it's being used
in the Department of Corrections," Ash said. "If we are wasting
money in some areas that could be better used in health care or
education, then it has an impact."

ORIGINS

Before the push toward tougher sentences, nearly every federal
and state system gave judges latitude on sentences and allowed
parole boards to periodically review whether an offender should be
released. Judges could consider factors such as marital status,
employment and social class as well as the crime itself when
determining how much, if any, time a defendant would face.

In the 1970s, concerns about variability in sentencing and
rising crime rates prompted a bipartisan push, led by Sens. Ted
Kennedy, D-Mass., and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., that in the 1980s led
to federal sentencing guidelines.

"It was strange bedfellows," said Cassia Spohn, a professor in
Arizona State University's School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice. "The conservatives argued that it's a tough-on-crime
control mechanism; the liberals argued that indeterminate sentences
were unfair, that they were racially and ethnically
disproportionate."

The guidelines base sentences on the severity of the offense and
the offender's criminal history. It's a complex formula that Spohn
equates to lines intersecting on a grid.

Meanwhile, states added their own sentencing guidelines, with
their own complex formulas, for offenses not covered by federal
laws.

The results were mandatory minimum sentences, most often
targeting drug-related crimes such as possession or trafficking but
also applying to DUIs, crimes involving weapons and repeated
offenses.

Hart, with the Morrison Institute, said Arizona has been a
national leader in such laws.

"Incarceration is very much used here as a tool, and in fact
Arizona has kind of a reputation nationwide as a fairly punitive
corrections system, meaning a heavy emphasis on incarceration,"
Hart said.

In 1978, Arizona adopted a criminal code laying out minimum,
maximum and presumptive sentences for dozens of felonies. It
included additional penalties for repeat offenders and those who
commit crimes while on probation.

One provision, for example, calls for a parolee charged with a
felony drug crime involving eight or more pounds of marijuana to
face a life sentence and serve a minimum of 25 years on top of any
other sentence.

Since then, lawmakers have regularly made changes, large and
small, to that code, sometimes increasing sentences but also
reclassifying offenses as more severe crimes, which has the effect
of boosting penalties. This year, for example, a bill signed by
Gov. Jan Brewer made causing an accident while driving with a
suspended license a felony rather than a misdemeanor, raising the
penalty from a maximum of 30 days in jail to a minimum of nine
months behind bars.

In addition, Arizona established "three strikes" laws requiring
judges to give extended prison terms to those convicted three times
or more of violent or aggravated offenses. A so-called
truth-in-sentencing law requires violent and non-violent offenders
to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before being
eligible for parole.

Hart said such laws have boosted prison populations and rates of
incarceration around the country.

"Arizona has been a leader even among these in its rates," he
said.

Spohn said that another outcome of the push for mandatory
sentences was that power over criminal penalties shifted from
judges to prosecutors, who decide which crimes carrying which
mandatory minimum sentences defendants will face.

"We haven't eliminated discretion in sentencing, we just moved
it across the parking lot to the U.S. Attorney's Office," Spohn
said, quoting a federal judge she interviewed for her research.

After 10 years on the Maricopa County Superior Court bench,
Penny Willrich has become an advocate for amending sentencing
guidelines for non-violent offenders.

"This is sort of a rough-and-ready state, and they have a sort
of narrow and myopic view of criminal rehabilitation," Willrich
said. "Being soft on crime is a misnomer; any time you impose
punishment on somebody, you're not being soft on crime."

She added: "I think we really have to work on getting rid of the
misnomer so that people can get down to business of really
evaluating whether the sentences that are there fit the crime."

CONSERVATIVE VOICES

Last year, an Arizona Office of the Auditor General report on
the Arizona Department of Corrections' prison population and the
associated costs noted that the number of inmates had increased 10
times over since the late 1970s while the state's population had
only doubled. To keep up with that growth, it said, the state would
need to add 8,500 beds by 2017.

Until now, the state has addressed that growth by building more
prisons, the report said. Lower-cost options for the future could
include diverting more non-violent, low-risk offenders from prison
or reducing their time in prison, report concluded, adding that
state could look at expanding the use of alternatives to prison,
such as house arrest.

Out of a total state budget of $8.9 billion going into the
current fiscal year, which ends in June, $949 million was
designated for the Department of Corrections. The department's
budget has risen from $41.4 million in fiscal 1979, just after
Arizona's new criminal code went into effect, $413 million in
fiscal 1990 and $721 million in fiscal 2000.

It's the costs associated with Arizona's rising prison
population that have conservatives such as Ash looking for
alternatives for non-violent, low-risk offenders.

"I don't view myself as soft on crime," he said. "When a person
commits ... an intentional violent felony there's not much excuse
for that."

How the state deals with non-violent criminals offers an
opportunity to save tax dollars and help those offenders turn their
lives around, Ash said. He said his five years as a deputy public
defender in Maricopa County Superior Court informed those
views.

"Some people are not malicious; they've just made mistakes," Ash
said.

He authored seven bills this year that would have provided
judges discretion to sentence certain non-violent offenders to
alternatives to prison, reduced charges for certain non-violent
offenses or reduced prison time for low-risk offenders.

One bill would have prevented underage girls arrested for
prostitution from being charged with sex crimes. That change would
allow judges to sentence those offenders to diversion programs and
counseling rather than prison.

Another bill would have established a process allowing inmates
with severe medical conditions to apply for parole if they aren't
serving life sentences or facing the death penalty, releasing the
Department of Corrections from responsibility for their care.

Ash said such changes would take into account public safety, the
need to rehabilitate inmates and fiscal responsibility.

"At some point you have to balance financial resources you have
with what's needed to be done, and it's difficult when you just
have limited resources," he said.

However, Ash's only bill dealing with the subject to reach
committee was a measure that would have established a legislative
committee to study sentencing guidelines. It won a unanimous
endorsement from the House Judiciary Committee but didn't reach the
floor.

The Goldwater Institute, a private think tank dedicated to
limited government and free markets, has included alternative
sentences for non-violent offenders in its recommendations for
reducing the state budget.

Byron Schlomach, director for the Institute's Center for
Economic Prosperity, said judges and juries should be allowed to
look at whether options other than incarceration would allow
low-risk offenders to earn money to pay restitution and help cover
the cost of their supervision.

"Anything that's cheaper than what we are spending on
incarcerated individuals now -- that's just fiscal sense," he said.
"So why wouldn't we do that, especially if there's evidence, and
there is, that it's at least as effective as a deterrent on future
crime as the current system is."

Schlomach said he sees a "weird confluence" of liberal and
conservative arguments on the subject.

"That just sounds all kinds of conservative to me, and it also
sounds merciful to these other people who come from a different
point of view," he said.

Ash's efforts have national support from organizations such as
the Texas Public Policy Foundation, whose RightOnCrime project
focuses on reviewing mandatory sentences. The project has gained
support from national conservatives leaders such as Grover Norquist
and Newt Gingrich.

Marc Levin, the foundation's director of the Center for
Effective Justice, said the states' budget issues will persuade
people who wouldn't consider sentencing reform before to take a
closer look at the issue.

"In the past, people were extremely reluctant to address it -
they didn't want to be accused of being soft on crime," he said. "I
think people have realized that need to be both tough and
smart."

Hart, with the Morrison Institute, said he sees many states
reconsidering their stands on sentencing.

"There's a realization across the country that states can no
longer afford these enormous costs of incarceration," he said.
"There's a lot of belief and, I think, a lot of evidence that this
large-scale incarceration does not seem to have really worked very
much in correcting people."

A PROSECUTOR'S VIEW

Hart said deterrence, not rehabilitating criminals, was the goal
of mandatory sentencing.

"The aim was really to take discretion away from judges who were
perceived back then as being soft on crime and not harsh enough,"
he said.

Hart said those opposed to changing the current system contend
that non-violent offenders are a very small part of the
equation.

A 2010 report by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory
Council, produced in response to state budget concerns, said that
violent and repeat offenders make up about 94 percent of the
Arizona's prison population. The report also noted Arizona's crime
rate dropped by 42.3 percent from 1995 to 2008.

"Their whole point of argument is, 'No, we don't have a lot of
the wrong people in prison; the right people are in prison, even
though there are so many,'" Hart said.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he looks to crime
rates to see what's working.

"If we're warehousing them, fewer crimes are being committed,
and then other offenders who are out there on the streets don't
have the professionals teaching them what to do," he said.

Montgomery added that there's a lack of objective data on the
effect of alternatives to prison sentences.

"And without being able to do that I would be very suspect of
people trying to say, 'Aha! Diversion reduces crime which reduces
an inmate population,'" Montgomery said.

Ash's bills faced legislative gatekeepers with tough-on-crime
reputations. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, brought only one of Ash's bills before
the committee. The one bill that did wasn't taken up afterward by
the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Weiers,
R-Glendale.

"Just because we're in a budget crisis doesn't necessarily mean
that we need to let prisoners out of prison,' said Gould, who also
didn't respond to interview requests from Cronkite News Service.
"It's the basic function of government to punish evildoers.'

TRENDS

Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project for
the Pew Center on the States, said research shows that new ways of
treating substance abuse and other underlying causes of criminal
behavior can help reduce the chance that offenders will commit more
crimes when released. That's helping lawmakers in other states ask
the right questions when it comes to alternatives to prison.

"Part of that is due to the budget situation, but it's also in a
large part due to recognition that there are more effective,
less-expensive strategies," Gelb said.

Levin, with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said that this
is a message conservatives can respond well to.

"They realize that the growth in government has been
unsustainable, and the growth in the number of criminal laws -- the
number of people in prison -- has just been one aspect of the
enormous growth in government that we have to rein in," he
said.

Texas, for example, started programs in 2007 that allow more
non-violent offenders into substance abuse programs combined with
probation as an alternative to prison.

The Arizona Auditor General's report also noted Mississippi had
increased early releases for non-violent offenders, Florida had
expanded house arrests and Georgia had allowed non-violent
offenders to serve time during the day but be home at night.

Levin said that financial realities will force Arizona to take a
hard look at following suit.

"We don't want to just write a blank check for any other
government program," he said. "Why should we write a blank check
for prisons?"

Arizona's prison population

1970 -- 1,672

1974 -- 1,752

1980 -- 3,480

1985 -- 8,152

1990 -- 13,699

1995 -- 20,742

2000 -- 26,510

2005 -- 33,471

2010 -- 40,508

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(17) comments

[Post #1 of 6] I'm in favor of sentencing reform for nonviolent offenders, but this story does not present a fair picture of Ms. Gottsponer's criminal history. The story refers to her 2009 DUI conviction as "her first DUI," implying that it was a basic misdemeanor DUI with a BAC over 0.080. The reality is much more serious.

In Arizona, many (but not all) criminal cases are reported on the Internet at http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/. The following information comes from that site.

[Post #2 of 6] Ms. Gottsponer's DUI was a felony involving eight counts of DUI with a minor in the vehicle, two counts of providing false information to law enforcement, and one count of misconduct involving weapons. The docket notes indicate the DUI was "Extreme," meaning her BAC was over 0.150. She pled to one count of felony DUI and one count of felony Failure to Appear.

The story mentions her 1999 marijuana conviction, but fails to mention her more serious 2003 felony convictions.

[Post #3 of 6] The charges were: possession of a dangerous drug (e.g., meth), possession of marijuana (less than 2 pounds), possession of paraphernalia, involvement/use of a minor in a drug offense (2 counts), and failure to appear. She pled guilty to possession of a dangerous drug and failure to appear, and the disposition of the remaining charges is unclear from the web page.

She also had a 1997 felony conviction for possession of dangerous drugs.

[Post #4 of 6] So, her 2009 Aggravated DUI was, at a minimum, her third felony conviction. It may actually have been her fourth or fifth felony conviction, depending on the exact resolution of two cases from the late 1990s. Her record shows convictions for credit card theft in 1997 and possession of marijuana in 1999, both of which were in Superior Court instead of Justice Court, meaning that they may also have been felony convictions.

[Post #5 of 6] Finally, the story misrepresents the sentence in her DUI case. The story implies that she served 23 months for a DUI. In Arizona, many prison records are also online at http://www.azcorrections.gov/. Pulling up Ms. Gottsponer's record shows that she was sentenced to 2.5 years for her 2003 Dangerous Drug conviction.

[Post # 6 of 6] She also received 1.5 year sentences for her 2009 Aggravated DUI and Failure to Appear convictions, but these were served concurrently with the Dangerous Drug sentence. She was released after serving 18.5 months in prison (7/30/09 to 2/10/11). (This does not include pre-sentence incarceration in jail, which, I assume, is how she ended up serving a total of 23 months.)

"Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said "If we're warehousing them....then other offenders who are out there on the streets don't have the professionals teaching them what to do," he said."

No, they are learning from the true pros when behind bars.

My father worked in corrections, as a counselor/drug rehab coordinator. I remember him telling me one time that the only thing that prison accomplished for a non-violent offender was to make a more sophisticated and violent criminal.

Flagstaff Lawyer, I agree that the Daily Sun did a poor review on Ms. Gottsponer. However, the point here was that if we fail to adjust our sentencing guidelines, we will continue to pump an ever increasing amount of money to incarcerate non-violent offenders. We need to use probation in order to get these offenders into treatment and produce law abiding citizens instead of using our tax dollars to continue to incarcerate them.

ghostrider: I agree with everything you say. As I mentioned in my first post, I support sentencing reform for non-violent offenders. The writer of the article (who does not appear to work for the Daily Sun, by the way), did a disservice to the cause, however, by misrepresenting Ms. Gottsponer's criminal history.

The story is biased reporting seeking to justify a political position. Anytime the story uses the following words in the first few paragraphs you know the author is writing with rose-color glasses: "mother of two", "didn't expect prison for her first DUI", "left the judge with no other option". Presuming FlagLawyer's info is mostly accurate, this Mother of Two received a light sentence for the series of illegal activity. Glad she's changed and doing better. But she is no role model for reform.

DUI is a non violent offense....until the drunk driver plows their car into a family and leaves carnage all over the highway. I'm glad she went to prison. Drunk driving is a selfish act that shows a complete disregard for human life.

We have a criminal justice industry that profits on sending non violent citizens to prison for relatively minor offenses. I see most here still want to consider Marijuana a dangerous drug which is absurd. Even possession of a marijauna pipe is now a felony in Arizona and if it happens more than once you are likely to spend years in prison. I'd like for everyone who drinks alcohol to go to prison for years - it is a dangerous drug. The hysteria around marijuana is a bigger offense than smoking it

[quote]truthquest said: I see most here still want to consider Marijuana a dangerous drug which is absurd.[/quote]I'm not sure what you're talking about. None of the posters in this forum claimed Marijuana was a dangerous drug.

[quote]truthquest said: Even possession of a marijauna pipe is now a felony in Arizona and if it happens more than once you are likely to spend years in prison.[/quote]I can't speak for the rest of the state, but that's not true in Flagstaff. In Flagstaff, possession of marijuana paraphernalia is routinely charged as a misdemeanor and punished with a fine (i.e., no jail time at all), even after multiple convictions.

[quote]truthquest said: "I'd like for everyone who drinks alcohol to go to prison for years - it is a dangerous drug."[/quote] Many of those who choose to consume alcohol and then drive do go to prison. The difference between alcohol and marijuana is it's possible to test for someone under the influence of alcohol. Marijuana stays in your system long after the effects wear off so it is difficult to prove if the user is still under it's influence...

Marijuana is legal in some places while it's an offense in some other countries. Based upon the judiciary people must take action. There are many customs made on it. Well coming to this lady she got a severe punishment on behalf of it. As i read an essay services reviews about this story from many blogs. She would have chosen the mechanic filed to work with.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.